TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th dt. 10th April, 2003, for admission of additional evidence under r. 29 of the ITAT Rules 1963. The learned representative of the assessee Shri Pieyush Kaushik submitted that before the Departmental authorities the assessee had filed confirmations from the American Express Bank (Luxemborg), evidencing the factum of transfer of various remittances from this account to the account of Joakim Alm and Anita Pandeya with Citi Bank, Mumbai and Delhi. According to the learned counsel, this evidence was adduced to explain the investment made by the two persons but the Revenue authorities insisted for personal accounts of these persons with the banks overseas from where two funds have been transferred into India. It is submitted that these document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had advanced secured loan to the company. Since it could not be done, the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained cash credit under s. 68. Before the learned CIT(A) it was submitted that the genuineness of the transaction was evident from the personal bank statements of the creditors. It was also submitted that since both the creditors and directors of shareholders of the company and both of them were maintaining two accounts with Citi Bank in India, the identity of both these persons stood established. Before the learned CIT(A) fax message dt. 21st Nov., 2001 from Price Waterhouse Coopers was also filed. The learned CIT(A) has not placed reliance on this evidence on the pretext that it was simply a photocopy of the fax message which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for under the law will ensure. It is, therefore, incorrect to shut out an assessee in the process of administration of justice from leading evidence to prove its case. The earlier inability to lead evidence should not be held against the assessee unless it is known to the Court or suggested to the Court or there was evidence to suspect that the evidence was fabricated. In the instant case, there was no such suggestion and, therefore, the assessee's evidence was to be admitted. The CIT(A) was, therefore, directed to examine the payment of commission afresh and to issue orders accordingly." 9. In view of the above decision, if the evidence is genuine, reliable and proves the assessee's case then the assessee is not to be denied the opport....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he cash credits. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. The assessee took the matter further. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A). The assessee preferred reference. The question referred for the esteemed opinion of the High Court was as to whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming itself to the material on record before the ITO and not admitting the fresh evidence for the purpose of examining the taxability of Rs. 27,000 as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble High Court after considering r. 46A of the ITAT Rules held that it could not be said that AAC was not justified in refusing to give permission to adduce fresh evidence. In view of the above, it is clear that in that case the evidence was filed before....